I'd agree with you. There's a time for all (3) options, but you shouldn't expect the experience to be the same. I'm not always a massive fan of watching a film where I've really enjoyed the book though. Conversely, sometimes the films are better. {shrug} Audible means I get to read more books... but then you have to like the narrator ;)
Sepulchral Miasma Lord of the Rings for one. The books were just long and tiresome to read for me! Game of Thrones too (if we forget the end season fiasco).
The “pageantry” of large scale battles is awesome though. You can’t really simulate that feeling you get from having a full army on the tabletop. I do agree that computer driven simulations make things much more efficient and that provides a different experience. Someone noted that this is like comparing books to films and I agree with that sentiment. Playing a large battle with your friends is akin to “reading the book” - it’s a scaled up version of satisfaction that you need to put a little more effort into but is much more memorable.
I think it really comes down to your "paperwork tolerance". For me, the amount of paperwork in Battletech is so worth the tabletop experience it delivers. What's awesome is that now we have the option to play both via computer or tabletop.
The thing with Battletech is that it can be as complex or as simple as you want it to be. The new 2-player starter includes the basic rules for Battletech, but leaves out stuff like heat management and internal structure damage. That is saved for the core game box. Then you have Alpha Strike, which is even simpler. And it all comes with cards that you can just fill in with a dry-erase marker, making the whole process that much faster. Me? I like the same Battletech I played back in the 80's. But hey, as long as they keep the original game alive along with the other changes, then to each his own. And with the Clan Invasion Kickstarter kicking all kinds of ass, this game is about to blow up once more, just as it deserves. :)
I tried really hard to like Alpha Strike but all it did for me was to Strike Out! My personal opinion is that Alpha Strike is supposed to be simpler but is really just as complicated. They went from one book for alpha strike in the beginning. Battletech used to be just a couple dozen pages in the beginning. Then Alpha Strike needed almost immediately a second book. Now they just released a new book for Alpha Strike revising the rules.... uhg! Don't call it simple and then tell me you need a text book sized treaty to play it.
I agree with Uncle Atom's view when it comes to games involving massive forces or what may be considered too much bookkeeping. However, after recently discovering BattleTech through the Beginner's Box,, looking at the amount of online free resources - direct from the publishers as well as affiliated legit fan-driven websites - I managed to create a simpler version of Alpha Strike rules that eight year olds can play with adults and both will have fun. I love GWs games but aside from Underworlds have yet to play one under an hour which hasn't cost me an arm and a leg to buy (yeah, someone at GW really has it in for Aussies and Kiwis), or left me feeling that I've been out-cheesed rather than outplayed. BT rules level the playing field somewhat. And in BT, the term Alpha Strike means "streamlined tabletop Battletech" not "I've just totally obliterated half of your forces on the first turn because I went first and there's little chance of you coming back from there"
@@TheMightyHellfish Yes, I use a simple version of the Quick Strike rules for my similar aged boys. Basicly, no heat, no pilot checks, no internals. They love it.
Eh, I gave BT:AS a good try myself, even some attempt at a campaign with a friend. It turned boring pretty quickly. Even with a reasonably dense map, we just find that speed = best, and to some amount of their chagrin, I happen to like tanks. Which means I like hovertanks. Which means I get **20 inches** to play with on a large portion of my force. End result: conga line. Meh. Yawn. Bring me back when there's a decent overwatch mechanic stopping me from doing that shit.
I do agree with you on some things; I feel the same way about blood bowl for PC, it scratches that itch for me without me needing to buy all the teams and sit down and play it. It's literally just the game, but on the computer. Battletech for me is different though, the rules are not the same. The PC version is a good game, but to me if feels different and sadly limited; the number of mechs you have to choose from is tiny, and you can only ever take a lance at a time. On the tabletop you can take whatever you want, however much you want of it. If you want to run all tanks, you can. If you want to run a mix of hovercraft and mechs, you can. I enjoy that freedom the tabletop version gives you. I'm also not the biggest fan of some of the ways they changed the rules (like with the to-hit modifiers being changed into evasion points). Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy the PC version, but since it does have different rules, it will never replace the tabletop version to me.
Totally agree re: DoWII - but mainly because I wanted to up the base-building and system conquering, with HUGE armies aspects, and they went totally the other direction.
One thing that standard BattleTech does very well (at least for my group!) is capture the same feeling as something like D&D 4e or Rangers of Shadowdeep. Each player is only running his own 'Mech and the game becomes a mixture of tactical exercise and slowly leveling up the pilot and upgrading the machine/replacing it with something that isn't junk. We have also been adapting the older computer games into campaigns, most recently with MW2 Mercenaries, which was lots of nostalgic fun.
And I think that's a little sad. It's like more of a warning for people too dense to realize that themselves when viewing. When I was growing up we were all taught to already approach every interaction like that by default.
Opinion reminders should not be necessary at all for anyone over 8 years old. People need to learn how to distinguish opinion from fact by themselves. Learn to deal with disagreement from your world view.
I want a bolt action type of game where your troops can roll their ankle while hurtling a wall or something. Inexperience tank loader accidentally loads a HE round instead of an AP
tim heinzmann yeah... for sure... x com is as good as kill team... if not better.... well, no, it is better actually.(that’s one of those opinions uncle atom was talking about of course) but it’s one of the few skirmish computer games that is... especially as games workshop seems completely incapable of putting together a decent campaign system in to a skirmish game as well these days.
Yup, exp modded X-Com.. Likely because X-Com is probably the closest in "game terms" of a table-top skirmish game with persistent characters (kill-team and Necromunda). X-com rolls dice as it were. It is highly abstract to the simulated terrain for instance.. like missing at point blank with a shotgun while the AI hits you with a crit while having a 2% hit chance.....
@James Brincefield Uhm... Tabletop Simulator has been around for a while even before this video came out... While it still needs some improvements it is pretty close and surprisingly satisfying. Admittedly it does favor board and card games over miniatures but that is mainly because of the fact that few miniature companies are remotely interested in that type of product.
Round based warhammer game with exact same rules and army build and paint option would be pretty dope. As well you could try out armies before buying the plastics xD
I agree. I do remember loving the act of doing the crunchiness as a kid. Old school Traveler and its equations for star travel, long lists for crit and fumble rolls in D&D, tables for where you hit, etc. Now I prefer verisimilitude in my tabletop games rather than realism/ simulation. A lot can be said with very little and I appreciate that more as I get older.
I agree. I loved dawn of war when it was big units. The small unit play style had me thinking "This would be more fun as kill team." "Deathwatch" works better at the small unit game play but because its turn based not RTS.
If you want a faster Battletech game with minis play with the Alpha Strike rules or you can play MegaMek which is a open source pc version of the standard BattleTech rules. And dont forget to check out the BT Clan Invasion KS Uncle Atom! On another note, CGL actually went to AdetiCon. Did you by chance go to their booth?
@@markpullan3202 ive played company on company with standard rules and it takes a very long time. Fun as hell though if you have 12+ hours. This was around 93ish though. That was also using vehicles too. Have the AS books but havent played yet. Would be nice to have a battalion size game.
I’m so glad you mentioned BATTLETECH in your video, I’m a life-long fan of the franchise. Its true, the primary version of Battletech is complicated, but that is one thing that makes it fun for those who play it. The ‘Mechs get torn to pieces and the damage is extensive. It is an old game, a relic. It has history and so much lore. When it came out, video games really weren’t that great. The new game that came out is awesome, and I don’t fault anyone for finding it more fun than the tabletop. But the same might be said of WH40K I guess. And then you lose the hobby aspect, the paint, the people, the minis, the Saturdays at the game store... there is also the streamlined version of Battletech, Alphastrike for those who like the faster play.
I agree, and I think the same is true for board games too. Everything has to be simplified and intuitive and fun to do well relative to a video game experience. This was a good opportunity to reflect as I work on a tabletop project. Thanks.
Horses for different courses and it comes down to the *tabletop games (:D) designers to best fit. Example, a age of sail naval engagement of frigate versus frigate type of game you will want it detailed as the scale permits it - players want to simulate those Patrick O'Brien books. The bigger the scale of the engagement becomes the more the rules get designed for the intent. Take WHFB and Warmaster examples. Same world, same idea, different scales and rulesets designed to specifically take care of the battle scale intended. One would not play a Epic 40k battle using Warcry ruleset, the same way one would not be able to play a WHFB battle using Mordheim ruleset. Scale is as much about the rules design as the minis scale :) Good subject btw and deserves more discussion. Cheers.
Nice ramble as usual. One thing to consider as well is distribution and availability of product. Grabbing something on Steam or GOG is much more easily accessible than waiting for CGL to fix their lack of inventory specifically relating to Battletech.
Chain of command (WWII rules for platoon sized actions) has a defined groundscale of 12 inches representing 40 yards. Using 15mm miniatures means that the horizontal to vertical ratio is a near exact scale miniaturisation. Not exactly 'big battle' stuff, but definitely more of a 'combat simulator' than any other tabletop wargame system I have played.
I just started playing Battletech on the PC. It's good fun. I never played the tabletop game but having played lots of the Mechwarrior games I still know a little bit about the setting. I am conflicted about this. I prefer to have my Blood Bowl team as miniatures that I can pick up and inspect but to me the PC version is a superior experience. The game handles all the book-keeping and it reminds you to use your skills. There is no debate or interpretation of the rules, it works how the rules are intended to work and you can play it with somebody even if they don't have time to come over and play a game. I like playing Blood Bowl face to face but after a WAAC player I once played when I was learning the game kept calling "illegal procedure" and penalizing me every time I forgot to move my turn marker I prefer to let the pc handle stuff like that for me. Blood Bowl is a small scale game like a skirmish game, but there's certainly a lot of pros and cons for opening up the tabletop version verses launching the game on PC.
What are your facts about the gen-con reveals for the new GW-Products (Aeronautica, Beastwoodthing, AoS and Warhammer40k Colisseum, Stormvault Co-Op and the Underworld Introduction set)?
The whole thing about army sizes is probably what drove me towards naval gaming (specifically the whole pre-dreadnought era): Making a big (land) battle believable requires a load of miniatures. But recreating a naval battle durign the very early 1900s? There were some major battles with 20-30 ships per side. That's easily doable, and when using the appropiate scale (personally 1:2400), playing those battles out on an almost 1:1 ground to model scale is reasonably easy to achieve. (During the battle of Tsushima, the opposing fleets opened fire at ~7km or ~3m at 1:2400. Admittedly, that would mean using my garden as an ocean-substitute, but playing outside on a sunny day is not the worst thing imo).
Part of the problem with large battles is unless you know someone crazier then your self, it goes like this, " want to play a miniature wargame? Sure is sounds fun, do you have your own miniatures? no! Im working on my army, and when I have it done, I will work on a army for you. It should take anywhere between 2-5 years for my to complete both armies. sounds great, lets do it"
Games like Laser Squad and Lords of Chaos were doing skirmish scale gaming on computers in the late '80s and early '90s. As computers got more powerful such games tended to gain extra elements. In the mid-to-late '90s instead of Laser Squad you had UFO: Enemy Unknown (AKA X-COM: UFO Defense in the US, apparently) which added in a strategic layer over the skirmish combat. Possibly developers feel that tactical skirmish games under utilise modern PCs, which is why they don't seem too common these days. If you want a terrifying example of a miniature combat game that could be used to do something like a 1v1 FPS, have a look at Phoenix Command.
GW needs to commision a 40k videogame that plays exactly like the tabletop game. It would promote the hobby and sell more miniatures . Get to work and take my money
That would be an awful video game. You may like the 40k tabletop game, but ultimately it's a very simple dice roller which doesn't have much else going on. Implementing such game as a video game would be the most boring game ever. Would you play 40k with card board tokens? I would argue that most people wouldn't. And that tells a lot how 'good' of a game it is if you remove the hobby aspect from it.
I just recently got into Battletech and I personally like all of the details that go into the tabletop simulation. But to each their own. As you say all the time, the most important thing is having fun. For me, personally, the complex tabletop simulation is fun because it feels like I’m actually piloting the mech.
This brings me back to some of the things we talk about on the every other Sunday show, like the WH:U game that we’ve seen a trailer for and gameplay but we’ve only seen a story trailer for the Necromunda game and nothing else for it in almost or over a year. Personally, I think Tabletop games are the greatest gameplay experience one could enjoy (opinion) but videogame adaptions of those are nice for when it’s hard to find an opponent with a pulse.
I remember a Warhammer 40k game that I was a part of that had 40,000 points to a side (3rd edition btw), it took a few hours for the initial set-up and even though there were 4 people to a side and it only went 4 turns, it still took around 12 hours or more (my memory is a bit vague on the time) to play. I have never been involved with anything near that scale since, nor do I want to be!
Atom, I agree to some degree with you about the computer games not being able to compete with the skirmish type games, especially when you include that fact how much you can customise on the model side of things (painting, modelling etc). However there were a few titles that could compete easily, especially one had a big potential, unfortunately it was long time ago, and skirmish games like Kill Team were not a thing back then: Warhammer 40000 - Chaos Gate. I think this was the best 40k game ever. It had everything: - troops customisation (limited but still), and experience system: CHECK - characters: CHECK - turn based system: CHECK All it was missing was other factions, and a multiplayer mode. I wish they would make a reboot of that game, with all factions included, and with a solo story line like the one in DoW Dark Crusade (where you can play the campaign with each of the factions, having different cinematics etc.. it was really cool. I pretty much played the game several times, completing it on each of the factions ;> ) I think that a refreshed/rebooted Chaos Gate game (or a game that used similar mechanics, could do well). There was also another one, but it's scope was limited, due to being released on on a portable console: Sony PSP (the original one) - it was called Warhammer 40K Kill Team btw - and it was a turn based strategy, where you command a small team of space marines on various missions. So potential is/was there. It just seems that the studios don't seem to be interested in that, plus I bet GW would not want people suddenly switching to a computer version of KT :)
You can get Chaos Gate on Good Old Games, I just noticed recently. And, it’s optimized to still run on modern PCs. The graphics are still old and such, but it will run. Thanks for watching!
I’ve been a miniature tabletop gamer since 1976 when I attended my first Convention . I’ve also been a video gamer since the original “ Pong”. Mostly, the large games I play are historical. We have tried “ simulation “ such as limited intelligence and “ Fog of War “ by using technology, I.E. video, radio , hand written orders and now “ Face Time “.
I know it's an old video, but I hope you read this comment in the youtube thing for it! Even for simulationist first person shooter stuff, there is a way. TTRPGs, specifically GURPS. It has a lot of options, and is pretty simulationist. Turns are a second by second thing, but it doesn't take too long unless there are lots of people in the combat, players or npcs, which is where games beat them out. But my table has seen 10-20 people on the battlefield before it got too slow, depending on the points. But the hardest part about it is that it is a rpg first, so you need to build your character, which can take a while. GURPS does have ways to make it quicker for players that don't want to spend lots of time making characters, but it's still a bit to get through. Great system, though. Highly recommended.
I'll have to agree with you, 'cause I love games like XCOM but at the same time I would really rather spend the same time playing a similar game on the tabletop. But as we talk about massive armies game I think I'll rather play them on PC and let it to the math! Awesome vid!
Adam Do these tabletop games ever have dedicated offense and defense players on each side? This way the whole i go you go can be put the bed...or am i missing something?
I'm still pretty new to the wh40k universe, but after playing dow:soulstorm it introduced me to a lot of different factions I didn't even know existed, showed me a whole lot of awesome lore about them and basically made it so I didn't have to do so much hunting just to figure out a few things, it was also really fun and not overly complex
For me the computer game but it's an extention to my hobby and when it's done like the tabletop game can help me practice. Like battle fleet gothic and bloodbowl both turn based and dam close to the original. Plus turn based computer games are handy when painting or building as can help with breaking things up.
Yep, the best tabletop games are the ones that abstract away the detail in favour of fun (and simple rulesets can have a lot of depth to them on the tabletop). A case in point being Kings of War which turned mass battle into a skirmish game with large units of soldiers acting with a single footprint and a single statline, which makes for a smooth and enjoyable game. I'd like to try Epic Armageddon too which I understand does something similar.
I seen the exact thing you’re talking about and my friend Keith Carlton was alive he and a bunch of other guys did 10 to 20,000 point games of Warhammer fantasy seventh edition on five tables and it took all day long.
A balancing act between playing a game and re-enacting a historical battle. A game needs to play well first and foremost. I played a game at a con recently that was a civil war battle that was huge with ton of models and the game was run by a GM that punched what historical unit was shooting at another and the computer had a % based on how well the unit did in battles at what ranges and such, was a weird amalgamation of gaming with models with computer doing the dicey bits. Tactics and such was left to the gamer.
Hey this may be unrelated to the conversation, but i just began researching about Warhammer, AoS in particular, and I'm looking for advice about how to begin with the hobby. I have the Core Book for AoS now and I plan on slowly getting into the hobby over time, but when it comes to the local game shop scene for wargaming, how open are people to teaching others by watching a game or maybe participating as a partner in the game? For example, i got into MTG due to players, now friends, allowing me to borrow a deck and play against them while they teach me the rules and strategies of the game. Now this may be different due to the game being played with models that are painted and worth more than cards, but I don't know someone personally that plays any kind of wargame so this scene is completely new to me. Thanks for any advice and hopefully i can respond to any comments or questions you all have for me too. Also, great channel you definitely got me interested in the hobby :) This idea came to me by watching the "How to not be 'That Guy'" video from a while ago.
And then many games are meeting in the middle with apps. Mansions of Madness: 2nd ed. does this very well with the app taking the "GM" role, allowing me to play as an invest and making a game playable in one evening.
Something that's overlooked in the video: Many people play one type of game or the other (i.e. video vs. tabletop games) because it suits their preferences. Many folks who play video games just can't get behind the static nature of miniatures and dice rolling, while many folks who play tabletop just don't like the environment inherent to video games. I agree that both types of games do some things better than the other, but I hardly think they're competing for the same crowd. I feel the videogaming and wargaming communities are entirely separate; they just happen to have a bit of overlap.
While i like skirmish games the streamlining of 40k turned me right off it. I only play 5th edition now in a small group with some bolt action house rules thrown in.
I prefer to play the computer version of Star Fleet Battles on the computer (Star Fleet Command) via the LAN simply because more massive and faster battles can be fought without the paperwork overheads.
I often have reservations about a 'vidya gaem' adaptation with is basically a port of a TT game to an electronic platform - much like the 2013 Space Hulk game. I feel like EA's 1993 release took more advantage of the change in platform to produce an experience that was very different, but really true to the spirit of the original game(even if it was single player only, because you can't really use that interpretation of the command point system in multiplayer). Adapting to a video game should be seen as an opportunity to innovate in gameplay, rather than just beating off over dynamic lighted 3d renders.
They are interesting points you make. I'm old. PC's hold no real joy for me. When I do a Napoleonic wargame I want the armies at ratio 1:20. If I do Bagration 1944 I want a slice of the battle at 1:15. I only collect 1/72 plastic armies for the grandeur of effect and for the challenge of production. There will probably always be people like me who have a foot in only one camp. There will obviously be people like you who have a foot in each. You often say it yourself 'if you're having fun, you're winning' at the hobby, obviously. Opinions, if you'll forgive me, are like navels. It's a valid opinion but the pool of reasoning and nuance is far deeper than this and may require a series of its own to be adequately explored. I thoroughly enjoy your work and the debate it throws up.
I like the size of warhammer 40k. It is fun with all of the models and having big armies, but it doesn't cost too much to actually play. I also love the scale of total war, with it's grand and detailed battles. And I love the scale of ARMA III, where you are working with your team in small and large groups on a dynamic battlefield filled with players and AI. edit: I think Dawn of War 2 and games like it are great. For example x-com. I also think that large scale wargames and large scale batlle video games are both epic. They are just a different experience. I really enjoy seeing all of the soldiers shooting and stabbing eachother in total war, but I also really like looking at my painted soldiers, or robots, or cyborgs, or monsters in the battle up close, behind cover, and in detailed scenery and being able to have these types of thing in real life.
But First Person Shooters with all that detail have already been effectively brought offline. Flying Buffalo's Lost World gamebooks do just that. Or the Queen's Blade gamebooks if you want some naughty content
What's interesting back in the day most games were very simulation heavy, like old WRG games, and after time they started making more abstract, fast games like DBA. It is interesting to think that we started with complex, deep and heavy, and not yhe other way around, like with board games that started simple and became more and more complex (not counting board game wargames).
tRiGgErEd... Lol actually I’m a LONG time battletech fan, and I agree. HBS knocked it out of the park for me too. Check out Dow ultimate apocalypse (which is free) if you want to play huge games of simulated 40k man those guys have skills.
My opinion is - the over abstraction of the miniatures games has reached a point where people that do like some simulationist have been driven out with a lack of content since every game seems to be going overboard with over abstraction. I too started with Battletech in the 80s. And I agree it can be over complicated. However - there needs to be a middle ground. Miniatures to me should have some immersive reality in them. When things don't operate how they should intuitively, it can be jarring and suck. There needs to be a middle ground. Not all miniatures games need to be Magic: The Gathering in their abstraction. When most of the tabletop games have moved toward "streamlining" abstraction, you are leaving the people that like some simulationist aspects in the dark. Playing computer games is great... except you don't have that face to face element that people enjoy with tabletop miniatures.
What surprises me with how common portable computers are is how little they are used to help run a table game. Do people just like rolling lots of dice and crunching the numbers?
Personally this is how I think it will go: technology will advance more and more unless people will play with the plastic models until all that's left are a few hold outs and collectors. Then plastic will make a resurgence and the market will stabilize. This is something we see with Telecom. Millennials were crazy about things like Skyping meetings but genze is more and more preferring in-person meetings. Genze is also interested in Polaroids. It seems like even though old technology is phasing out that it makes a resurgence because people like the "old School" like vinyl.
Good things about games such as, for example, Total war: warhammer is the fact that you can play games when ever you want, or if no one local. Hanging out for NECROMUNDA on pc so much.
XCOM is pretty successful as a skirmish style video-game. Enough so that its genre of turn-based tactics is having a bit of a resurgence on PC, with quite a few high-quality indie titles springing up in the last couple of years. So while I do see the point about tabletop moving away from large army games, I'm not sure I'd agree that we need some sort of AR set-up for video-games to do well in the area of small skirmish combat.
xcom is pretty good when i comes to skirmish pc games, however, when i was done with it and the online aspect died out, i just went back to 40k so then theres that...
Skirmish game on the PC: XCOM2. If Corvus Belli would do one for Infinity like that, I'd be all over it. However, the appeal of TT over PC games is the social aspect, which you just can't quite capture playing online.
This is #1 when it comes to good game design. A game isn’t a simulation. Look at... Tetris. Tetris isn’t a simulation of anything. A game can be _themed,_ that is, it can be _’dressed up’_ as whatever you want. Fantasy, sci fi, that’s all artistic choice. ________ Not only are simulations bad games... due to the fact that they’re activities which are _not_ games... But reality is so often counter intuitive, that our expectations differ wildly from what the simulation delivers. What we _imagine_ a simulation to be like... is inspired by _so many_ tropes, myths, ideals, aspirations, etc, that reality *will* defy our preconceived notions of reality: Take for example... a fantasy duel between knights. You’re not hurting someone in that plate armor you’re imagining. Nobody is dying in a duel. What we _do_ know, based on archeological forensics of battle fields... is that fights looked like a modern machete fight, between two mobs in a standoff at a skirmish line. Eventually there’s fear, panic, and a stampede: a rout. Virtually everyone who dies, is chased down, exhausted, beaten and hacked to death by a mob - helmets ripped off, several blows to the head in the fetal position, etc. What we want to simulate isn’t reality. What we _can_ simulate, is a model abstracted from reality. _______ In fact, the task of simulating reality is likely impossible due to the fact that our own misconceptions _will_ find their way into the system.
First person shooter? Atom... I play Traveller with Miniatures. Tabletop RPG's are the way to go with "detailed" FPS style tabletop. Striker rules for Traveller to add in larger battles.
Given the ideas in this video why do you think that Games Workshop is making Apocalypse? This is a tabletop rule set specifically for the kinds of large scale battles that are better done by a computer, at least according to the premise of this video.
Why are GW making Apocalypse? Because a company that sells toy soldiers will benefit from people buying lots and lots and lots of toy soldiers, that's why.
Well, for one thing, they have streamlined the rules a lot in the new version of Apocalypse - which follows along with the point of my video. Thanks for watching!
Atom, I run historical games. I can set up a battle from the Napoleonic wars in 15mm with hundreds of troops on the battlefield. I play a simulation ruleset called Napoleon's Battles that when it was released back in 1988 or so was considered a "streamline" miniatures game. A game can take anywhere from four to six hours and for big battles eight or more hours. We could play in less time, but the challenge I face is that when I organize a game with six players, let's say three per side, and the players are so exited to talk to each other about early 19th century tactics and the color of wool that the 5th Regiment of Foot wore with another human being that for me as they gamemaster, I have a hard time focusing the other players on the game. It has nothing to do with the ruleset, but everything to do with people who sit in their hobby hovel all week painting little tiny soldiers in a society where everyone thinks it is not normal, but yet they play a game with a real human being (not a computer) they want to talk about all the research they have done and show off the minis they spent the whole week (month) painting. This is not a bad thing, but realize that no matter how well computers simulate combat, humans are social animals and we wargamers are misunderstood by the rest of "normal" people in society who have no passion for anything except making money. It's nice to spend the day with people who "get" you and are passionate about our hobby. Make a video about that. PA-CHOWW!!!
Hey Adam. Love the channel. I work in audio production radio commercials. That’s not to say I’m an expert, or even good, merely stated for context to my curiosity. My question is what audio setup are you using? With one caveat, your recordings sound great. What mic are you recording with and do you have any other hardware in your chain? The caveat is it could really benefit from a low cut filter. On fuller sound systems your voice becomes very muddy but everything else is recorded so well that it’s crystal clear rolling off the low end would make the audio infinitely better.
Do broadly agree although there are some styles that work well as pc simulation even on smaller scale. xcom (2011. or even 93 for that matter) with ~10 dudes would have been much harder to translate to the board.
It’s actually refreshing to get away from the computer games. Miniature wargaming is a tactile experience that computers (at least for now?) cannot deliver. Good as always, Uncle A!
If this had been titled '...too much complexity' rather than simulation then I would agree. The 'simulationist vs gamer' argument has been ongoing since the start of the hobby but at the core is about arguing about how 'real' the action is. ( or perceived to be ). Battletech is a simulation of... Big Stompy Robot Cartoons. It's good fun, but the powers that be can't even get the model scales consistant, and it has weapon ranges so short that a spudgun could out range them. A simulationist would poke their own eyes out than play Battletech ( or 40k or FoW or Bolt Action etc etc)
Given the current state of the video game industry and the growing trend towards microtransactions.. I feel like I have more fun with tabletop gaming as far as hobbies go and I used to be a hardcore gamer, especially when it comes to glueing together and painting my armies, it makes them more personal.
There really are no difference in time between playing a mass battle game that has 10-20 unit elements or a skirmish game with roughly the same numbers of element to move in a game. In the miniatures market there is a whole slew of slimmed and really good mass battle games that only take a few hours to play. I usually play a mass battle game called Sword & Spears that have both a historical and fantasy version and that takes about as long to play as a 4-500p Star Wars Armada game. At least for us... The point raised here I think have more to do with complexity and not simulation of large battles. Modern rules tend to be less complex but in many ways simulates things more accurately. Complexity often lead to gaming the rules rather than playing the game, at least that is my opinion.
After getting really angry because of your opinion I realized that in reality you are right. Us old time (over 50) historical gamers love our 6x4 tables with hundreds of miniatures and 6-8+ hours to fight a battle. Time has become our enemy. Either historical miniatures or board games are really fading. Why fight Waterloo with 1000's of figures o taking an entire weekend to play when I can play on my computer screen over a week or 2. We have PBEM for our historical games and again I can take my time and just mail my turn in the computer does all the work. Sad very sad but it's really the truth.
Interesting view! For me personally I try not to compare the two too much as they give me different levels of entertainment. Though I do love playing games such as WHTW2 so I can get my total war fix in the Warhammer fantasy setting. I can't compare it to the feeling of playing the tabletop. That said of course I still love them both just for different reasons. Either way, great video and keep up the good work! :)
GW had a solution for Total Warhammer type tabletop it was great. It was called Warmaster. It worked as well as Epic 40k did. It was great. Lets be real though. What happened was this. Computer games drained market share from table-top. Table-top games were always small. They've been trying to regain that market share by streamlining. I am a detail guy. I prefer more complex (but not too complex) rules for tabletop. There is a vast "experiential" difference between a table-top game and a computer game, even if similar. While a computer takes the load off the players from having to buy and paint.. computers are actually severely limited in their "simulations". The boundaries put on the player experience are very narrow. Table-top is as infinite and detailed as the players make it with their models. I can understand the "time crunch" problem. People were used to a slower experience in decades past. Today everyone is hopped up on instant gratification and easy play of computers. This of course shrinks the Table Top Gaming market, which is ever tiny. You can try to make a table top game more abstract but the more abstract you make it the more boring and flat it becomes with less and less dynamism to draw you into the game. The thing about table-top vs computer is the ability to draw you into the game, to excite you, the details, the freedom of physical models that you move and paint. But let us also be real here in such that Table Top comes at a much higher cash price tag than a computer game like TW:WH, which I have and play and enjoy. But it is an entirely different experience than was playing Warmaster. Just as Table-top Simulator actually is a WORSE experience for me than playing on the table. Even though I don't get as many games in thanks to small children and busy adult lives tabletop is still more exciting to me than playing the same thing simulated on the computer. But then again, this modern day and age expect spoon-fed imagery and has trouble with "imagination". Also the down side to "speeding things up" is churn and exhaustion. Video-games suffer from severe churn and version exhaustion. Even more computer games that are proper sim games like TW:WH or a good 4x like Planetfall or older MOO and MOO2 could take 6-7 hours for a single multi-player game often played over the course of a week. There are engrossing activities and there are "quick hits". The style of play and the player expectations are completely different. I prefer engrossing activities and I don't mind if a game takes a week to finish off and on with friends. But turning Table Top into a MOBA isn't going to work. Physical models cost more, the take time to paint, they take time to setup, and as you keep shaving off playing into "depth" you end up with a kiddie pool that does not bring in the "quick hit drug" type (because it is still too engrossing and time consuming, as well as costly when they have other avenues to feed their instant grat addiction) and turns off people like me who look at the current Apoc and just laugh. And, we won't buy it. I still buy GW stuff but I buy less and less as time goes on. It's not about cost or money. I find their rules to be more and more boring, rather than swimming in an ocean I feel like I've got my feet in a foot-bath or a warm pee filled kiddie pool. I'd rather eat cardboard pizza. The final piece of the puzzle and why "watering down" or "speeding up" table-top too far to try to expand into the computer type market is that given the choice between a severely bland fast table-top game and a computer game that is both cheaper and faster to experience and play.. I am always going to pick the computer game. I play Table Top games because they offer an experience that computer games cannot. The closer they bring the two the MORE superior computer gaming is to table top.
Everytime when a new - lets call it realistic - WW2 computer game comes out, there are people that criticize its not realistic enough. However, true realism is just not fun to play. Let me give an example: If a wargame of WW2 was 100% realistic, germany would always loose in that game. Would that be fun? I can understand that people want to play games in which the unit strength are realistic, but I personally don't want to play games in which this comes at the cost of game balance.
Love the channel. Thanks for your time. I really enjoy mordheim city of the damned, its buggy however I enjoy it. Eagerly waiting for necromunda video game. But I do agree. Both types of play, table top, and video games bring unique experiences. Thank.
It's true there are plusses & minuses to the different game formats (tabletop & video). But personally I prefer just using programs & apps (that keep track of hit points & turns & such) as supplements to tabletop miniature & RPG games rather than playing video/computer games. That being said I do sometimes play them
Agreed. As I see it, that's why you still see people playing massive, nitty-gritty tabletop battles like old school Armageddon or historicals, while others play small-party skirmish video games like XCOM or Dawn of War II or the like. Each medium offers something unique, and does some things better than the other, but even if video games are great at massive battles, some people just want to see huge armies of minis on the table. They both have their place and can happily coexist.
I am of the opinion that battletech needs a new version that is in between complexity of total warfare and alpha strike. Streamline total warfare while keeping the spirit of the game
I play tabletop instead of video games now because it doesn’t have micro transactions or force me to gamble to get the items I want or make things my favorite colors.
Simulation stuff is exactly why I stopped playing those older games. I realised pretty quickly that things like reserves and the older mechanics in games like Flames of War are actually really unfun and slow things down immensely. Why the hell would I want to play a game where 50% of my army sits off the board and fights 100% of my opponents army?
I get the feeling comparing tabletop games and computer games is much like books and films
I'd agree with you. There's a time for all (3) options, but you shouldn't expect the experience to be the same. I'm not always a massive fan of watching a film where I've really enjoyed the book though. Conversely, sometimes the films are better. {shrug} Audible means I get to read more books... but then you have to like the narrator ;)
Sepulchral Miasma Lord of the Rings for one. The books were just long and tiresome to read for me! Game of Thrones too (if we forget the end season fiasco).
The “pageantry” of large scale battles is awesome though. You can’t really simulate that feeling you get from having a full army on the tabletop. I do agree that computer driven simulations make things much more efficient and that provides a different experience. Someone noted that this is like comparing books to films and I agree with that sentiment. Playing a large battle with your friends is akin to “reading the book” - it’s a scaled up version of satisfaction that you need to put a little more effort into but is much more memorable.
I think it really comes down to your "paperwork tolerance". For me, the amount of paperwork in Battletech is so worth the tabletop experience it delivers.
What's awesome is that now we have the option to play both via computer or tabletop.
The thing with Battletech is that it can be as complex or as simple as you want it to be. The new 2-player starter includes the basic rules for Battletech, but leaves out stuff like heat management and internal structure damage. That is saved for the core game box. Then you have Alpha Strike, which is even simpler. And it all comes with cards that you can just fill in with a dry-erase marker, making the whole process that much faster.
Me? I like the same Battletech I played back in the 80's. But hey, as long as they keep the original game alive along with the other changes, then to each his own.
And with the Clan Invasion Kickstarter kicking all kinds of ass, this game is about to blow up once more, just as it deserves. :)
I tried really hard to like Alpha Strike but all it did for me was to Strike Out! My personal opinion is that Alpha Strike is supposed to be simpler but is really just as complicated. They went from one book for alpha strike in the beginning. Battletech used to be just a couple dozen pages in the beginning. Then Alpha Strike needed almost immediately a second book. Now they just released a new book for Alpha Strike revising the rules.... uhg! Don't call it simple and then tell me you need a text book sized treaty to play it.
I agree with Uncle Atom's view when it comes to games involving massive forces or what may be considered too much bookkeeping.
However, after recently discovering BattleTech through the Beginner's Box,, looking at the amount of online free resources - direct from the publishers as well as affiliated legit fan-driven websites - I managed to create a simpler version of Alpha Strike rules that eight year olds can play with adults and both will have fun. I love GWs games but aside from Underworlds have yet to play one under an hour which hasn't cost me an arm and a leg to buy (yeah, someone at GW really has it in for Aussies and Kiwis), or left me feeling that I've been out-cheesed rather than outplayed.
BT rules level the playing field somewhat. And in BT, the term Alpha Strike means "streamlined tabletop Battletech" not "I've just totally obliterated half of your forces on the first turn because I went first and there's little chance of you coming back from there"
@@TheMightyHellfish Yes, I use a simple version of the Quick Strike rules for my similar aged boys. Basicly, no heat, no pilot checks, no internals. They love it.
@Les Boyd Yes, so much for simpler. Just one text book to play. A second for additional rules.
Eh, I gave BT:AS a good try myself, even some attempt at a campaign with a friend.
It turned boring pretty quickly. Even with a reasonably dense map, we just find that speed = best, and to some amount of their chagrin, I happen to like tanks. Which means I like hovertanks. Which means I get **20 inches** to play with on a large portion of my force. End result: conga line. Meh. Yawn. Bring me back when there's a decent overwatch mechanic stopping me from doing that shit.
I do agree with you on some things; I feel the same way about blood bowl for PC, it scratches that itch for me without me needing to buy all the teams and sit down and play it. It's literally just the game, but on the computer.
Battletech for me is different though, the rules are not the same. The PC version is a good game, but to me if feels different and sadly limited; the number of mechs you have to choose from is tiny, and you can only ever take a lance at a time. On the tabletop you can take whatever you want, however much you want of it. If you want to run all tanks, you can. If you want to run a mix of hovercraft and mechs, you can. I enjoy that freedom the tabletop version gives you. I'm also not the biggest fan of some of the ways they changed the rules (like with the to-hit modifiers being changed into evasion points). Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy the PC version, but since it does have different rules, it will never replace the tabletop version to me.
Totally agree re: DoWII - but mainly because I wanted to up the base-building and system conquering, with HUGE armies aspects, and they went totally the other direction.
Ultimate Apocalypse has you covered
I appreciate your intro being real quick and getting on with the content.
One thing that standard BattleTech does very well (at least for my group!) is capture the same feeling as something like D&D 4e or Rangers of Shadowdeep. Each player is only running his own 'Mech and the game becomes a mixture of tactical exercise and slowly leveling up the pilot and upgrading the machine/replacing it with something that isn't junk. We have also been adapting the older computer games into campaigns, most recently with MW2 Mercenaries, which was lots of nostalgic fun.
I love the opinion reminders. SO many people need those in their videos, and other social media posts!
And I think that's a little sad. It's like more of a warning for people too dense to realize that themselves when viewing. When I was growing up we were all taught to already approach every interaction like that by default.
Problem is, many youtubers think their OPINIONS are FACTS
Opinion reminders should not be necessary at all for anyone over 8 years old. People need to learn how to distinguish opinion from fact by themselves. Learn to deal with disagreement from your world view.
What if our opinion is fact though? :D
I want a bolt action type of game where your troops can roll their ankle while hurtling a wall or something. Inexperience tank loader accidentally loads a HE round instead of an AP
That’s generally simulated via missed dice rolls, I think. Thanks for watching!
Xcom is a better skirmishgame than most tabletop games. 😊
tim heinzmann yeah... for sure... x com is as good as kill team... if not better.... well, no, it is better actually.(that’s one of those opinions uncle atom was talking about of course)
but it’s one of the few skirmish computer games that is... especially as games workshop seems completely incapable of putting together a decent campaign system in to a skirmish game as well these days.
Yup, exp modded X-Com.. Likely because X-Com is probably the closest in "game terms" of a table-top skirmish game with persistent characters (kill-team and Necromunda). X-com rolls dice as it were. It is highly abstract to the simulated terrain for instance.. like missing at point blank with a shotgun while the AI hits you with a crit while having a 2% hit chance.....
@James Brincefield Uhm... Tabletop Simulator has been around for a while even before this video came out...
While it still needs some improvements it is pretty close and surprisingly satisfying. Admittedly it does favor board and card games over miniatures but that is mainly because of the fact that few miniature companies are remotely interested in that type of product.
Best game if you like 40k? Xcom 2. It's basically Killteam with Genestealer Cults vs Deathwatch. Also it has 40k mods.
Round based warhammer game with exact same rules and army build and paint option would be pretty dope. As well you could try out armies before buying the plastics xD
I agree. I do remember loving the act of doing the crunchiness as a kid. Old school Traveler and its equations for star travel, long lists for crit and fumble rolls in D&D, tables for where you hit, etc.
Now I prefer verisimilitude in my tabletop games rather than realism/ simulation. A lot can be said with very little and I appreciate that more as I get older.
Thanks for the new word
Battletech was my first minis game, too! I still love it.
Tabletop simulator: Am I a joke to you?
Lol
A little bit, yeah. Thanks for watching!
@@tabletopminions Boring rant honesty
Tabletop Simulator: Am I a joke to you?
People who have tried to use it for miniature gaming: Yeah, honestly.
I agree. I loved dawn of war when it was big units. The small unit play style had me thinking "This would be more fun as kill team." "Deathwatch" works better at the small unit game play but because its turn based not RTS.
As I’ve played both, I agree with you almost exactly. Thanks for watching!
If you want a faster Battletech game with minis play with the Alpha Strike rules or you can play MegaMek which is a open source pc version of the standard BattleTech rules.
And dont forget to check out the BT Clan Invasion KS Uncle Atom!
On another note, CGL actually went to AdetiCon. Did you by chance go to their booth?
We've played Alpha Strike at my local club, and were easily getting through company-on-company size battles in one session.
@@markpullan3202 ive played company on company with standard rules and it takes a very long time. Fun as hell though if you have 12+ hours. This was around 93ish though. That was also using vehicles too. Have the AS books but havent played yet. Would be nice to have a battalion size game.
@@darkstorminc I hear ya. Was doing the same back in '93, but I was a student then so 12+ hours was doable. :)
I’m so glad you mentioned BATTLETECH in your video, I’m a life-long fan of the franchise. Its true, the primary version of Battletech is complicated, but that is one thing that makes it fun for those who play it. The ‘Mechs get torn to pieces and the damage is extensive. It is an old game, a relic. It has history and so much lore. When it came out, video games really weren’t that great. The new game that came out is awesome, and I don’t fault anyone for finding it more fun than the tabletop. But the same might be said of WH40K I guess. And then you lose the hobby aspect, the paint, the people, the minis, the Saturdays at the game store... there is also the streamlined version of Battletech, Alphastrike for those who like the faster play.
I agree, and I think the same is true for board games too. Everything has to be simplified and intuitive and fun to do well relative to a video game experience. This was a good opportunity to reflect as I work on a tabletop project. Thanks.
Horses for different courses and it comes down to the *tabletop games (:D) designers to best fit. Example, a age of sail naval engagement of frigate versus frigate type of game you will want it detailed as the scale permits it - players want to simulate those Patrick O'Brien books. The bigger the scale of the engagement becomes the more the rules get designed for the intent. Take WHFB and Warmaster examples. Same world, same idea, different scales and rulesets designed to specifically take care of the battle scale intended. One would not play a Epic 40k battle using Warcry ruleset, the same way one would not be able to play a WHFB battle using Mordheim ruleset. Scale is as much about the rules design as the minis scale :) Good subject btw and deserves more discussion. Cheers.
Nice ramble as usual. One thing to consider as well is distribution and availability of product. Grabbing something on Steam or GOG is much more easily accessible than waiting for CGL to fix their lack of inventory specifically relating to Battletech.
A dimension that isn't considered here is scale. If you want a decent big battle experience on the tabletop go for something other than 28mm.
Chain of command (WWII rules for platoon sized actions) has a defined groundscale of 12 inches representing 40 yards.
Using 15mm miniatures means that the horizontal to vertical ratio is a near exact scale miniaturisation.
Not exactly 'big battle' stuff, but definitely more of a 'combat simulator' than any other tabletop wargame system I have played.
@@corvusboreus2072 I love chain of command - played a bit in 20mm recently including a big all-day Bridge Too Far bash.
I just started playing Battletech on the PC. It's good fun. I never played the tabletop game but having played lots of the Mechwarrior games I still know a little bit about the setting. I am conflicted about this. I prefer to have my Blood Bowl team as miniatures that I can pick up and inspect but to me the PC version is a superior experience. The game handles all the book-keeping and it reminds you to use your skills. There is no debate or interpretation of the rules, it works how the rules are intended to work and you can play it with somebody even if they don't have time to come over and play a game. I like playing Blood Bowl face to face but after a WAAC player I once played when I was learning the game kept calling "illegal procedure" and penalizing me every time I forgot to move my turn marker I prefer to let the pc handle stuff like that for me. Blood Bowl is a small scale game like a skirmish game, but there's certainly a lot of pros and cons for opening up the tabletop version verses launching the game on PC.
What are your facts about the gen-con reveals for the new GW-Products (Aeronautica, Beastwoodthing, AoS and Warhammer40k Colisseum, Stormvault Co-Op and the Underworld Introduction set)?
The whole thing about army sizes is probably what drove me towards naval gaming (specifically the whole pre-dreadnought era):
Making a big (land) battle believable requires a load of miniatures. But recreating a naval battle durign the very early 1900s? There were some major battles with 20-30 ships per side. That's easily doable, and when using the appropiate scale (personally 1:2400), playing those battles out on an almost 1:1 ground to model scale is reasonably easy to achieve. (During the battle of Tsushima, the opposing fleets opened fire at ~7km or ~3m at 1:2400. Admittedly, that would mean using my garden as an ocean-substitute, but playing outside on a sunny day is not the worst thing imo).
Part of the problem with large battles is unless you know someone crazier then your self, it goes like this,
" want to play a miniature wargame? Sure is sounds fun, do you have your own miniatures? no! Im working on my army, and when I have it done, I will work on a army for you. It should take anywhere between 2-5 years for my to complete both armies. sounds great, lets do it"
Games like Laser Squad and Lords of Chaos were doing skirmish scale gaming on computers in the late '80s and early '90s. As computers got more powerful such games tended to gain extra elements. In the mid-to-late '90s instead of Laser Squad you had UFO: Enemy Unknown (AKA X-COM: UFO Defense in the US, apparently) which added in a strategic layer over the skirmish combat. Possibly developers feel that tactical skirmish games under utilise modern PCs, which is why they don't seem too common these days.
If you want a terrifying example of a miniature combat game that could be used to do something like a 1v1 FPS, have a look at Phoenix Command.
Laser Squad still stands up as a strategy game on its own right, for me. Laser Squad Nemesis, as a two player game, was utterly brilliant.
Great video! Question: what type of mic do you use?
GW needs to commision a 40k videogame that plays exactly like the tabletop game. It would promote the hobby and sell more miniatures . Get to work and take my money
That would be an awful video game. You may like the 40k tabletop game, but ultimately it's a very simple dice roller which doesn't have much else going on. Implementing such game as a video game would be the most boring game ever. Would you play 40k with card board tokens? I would argue that most people wouldn't. And that tells a lot how 'good' of a game it is if you remove the hobby aspect from it.
Play Total Warhammer2
@@manga3040That's Warhammer Fantasy not 40k...
@@Elkarus True, but it might scratch the itch. A total war 40k would be amazing though holy shit.
I just recently got into Battletech and I personally like all of the details that go into the tabletop simulation. But to each their own. As you say all the time, the most important thing is having fun. For me, personally, the complex tabletop simulation is fun because it feels like I’m actually piloting the mech.
This brings me back to some of the things we talk about on the every other Sunday show, like the WH:U game that we’ve seen a trailer for and gameplay but we’ve only seen a story trailer for the Necromunda game and nothing else for it in almost or over a year.
Personally, I think Tabletop games are the greatest gameplay experience one could enjoy (opinion) but videogame adaptions of those are nice for when it’s hard to find an opponent with a pulse.
I remember a Warhammer 40k game that I was a part of that had 40,000 points to a side (3rd edition btw), it took a few hours for the initial set-up and even though there were 4 people to a side and it only went 4 turns, it still took around 12 hours or more (my memory is a bit vague on the time) to play. I have never been involved with anything near that scale since, nor do I want to be!
Atom, I agree to some degree with you about the computer games not being able to compete with the skirmish type games, especially when you include that fact how much you can customise on the model side of things (painting, modelling etc).
However there were a few titles that could compete easily, especially one had a big potential, unfortunately it was long time ago, and skirmish games like Kill Team were not a thing back then:
Warhammer 40000 - Chaos Gate.
I think this was the best 40k game ever. It had everything:
- troops customisation (limited but still), and experience system: CHECK
- characters: CHECK
- turn based system: CHECK
All it was missing was other factions, and a multiplayer mode.
I wish they would make a reboot of that game, with all factions included, and with a solo story line like the one in DoW Dark Crusade (where you can play the campaign with each of the factions, having different cinematics etc.. it was really cool. I pretty much played the game several times, completing it on each of the factions ;> ) I think that a refreshed/rebooted Chaos Gate game (or a game that used similar mechanics, could do well).
There was also another one, but it's scope was limited, due to being released on on a portable console: Sony PSP (the original one) - it was called Warhammer 40K Kill Team btw - and it was a turn based strategy, where you command a small team of space marines on various missions. So potential is/was there. It just seems that the studios don't seem to be interested in that, plus I bet GW would not want people suddenly switching to a computer version of KT :)
You can get Chaos Gate on Good Old Games, I just noticed recently. And, it’s optimized to still run on modern PCs. The graphics are still old and such, but it will run. Thanks for watching!
@@tabletopminions OMG !!! I did not know that. That is awesome news. THANK YOU !!
I’ve been a miniature tabletop gamer since 1976 when I attended my first Convention
. I’ve also been a video gamer since the original “ Pong”.
Mostly, the large games I play are historical. We have tried “ simulation “ such as limited intelligence and “ Fog of War “ by using technology, I.E. video, radio , hand written orders and now “ Face Time “.
I know it's an old video, but I hope you read this comment in the youtube thing for it!
Even for simulationist first person shooter stuff, there is a way. TTRPGs, specifically GURPS. It has a lot of options, and is pretty simulationist. Turns are a second by second thing, but it doesn't take too long unless there are lots of people in the combat, players or npcs, which is where games beat them out. But my table has seen 10-20 people on the battlefield before it got too slow, depending on the points. But the hardest part about it is that it is a rpg first, so you need to build your character, which can take a while. GURPS does have ways to make it quicker for players that don't want to spend lots of time making characters, but it's still a bit to get through. Great system, though. Highly recommended.
I'll have to agree with you, 'cause I love games like XCOM but at the same time I would really rather spend the same time playing a similar game on the tabletop. But as we talk about massive armies game I think I'll rather play them on PC and let it to the math! Awesome vid!
Adam
Do these tabletop games ever have dedicated offense and defense players on each side? This way the whole i go you go can be put the bed...or am i missing something?
I'm still pretty new to the wh40k universe, but after playing dow:soulstorm it introduced me to a lot of different factions I didn't even know existed, showed me a whole lot of awesome lore about them and basically made it so I didn't have to do so much hunting just to figure out a few things, it was also really fun and not overly complex
For me the computer game but it's an extention to my hobby and when it's done like the tabletop game can help me practice. Like battle fleet gothic and bloodbowl both turn based and dam close to the original. Plus turn based computer games are handy when painting or building as can help with breaking things up.
Yep, the best tabletop games are the ones that abstract away the detail in favour of fun (and simple rulesets can have a lot of depth to them on the tabletop). A case in point being Kings of War which turned mass battle into a skirmish game with large units of soldiers acting with a single footprint and a single statline, which makes for a smooth and enjoyable game. I'd like to try Epic Armageddon too which I understand does something similar.
I seen the exact thing you’re talking about and my friend Keith Carlton was alive he and a bunch of other guys did 10 to 20,000 point games of Warhammer fantasy seventh edition on five tables and it took all day long.
A balancing act between playing a game and re-enacting a historical battle. A game needs to play well first and foremost. I played a game at a con recently that was a civil war battle that was huge with ton of models and the game was run by a GM that punched what historical unit was shooting at another and the computer had a % based on how well the unit did in battles at what ranges and such, was a weird amalgamation of gaming with models with computer doing the dicey bits. Tactics and such was left to the gamer.
"A game needs to play well first and foremost." - wisely spoken my friend.
blood bowl is just like that. it's nice having the rolling automated
Hey this may be unrelated to the conversation, but i just began researching about Warhammer, AoS in particular, and I'm looking for advice about how to begin with the hobby. I have the Core Book for AoS now and I plan on slowly getting into the hobby over time, but when it comes to the local game shop scene for wargaming, how open are people to teaching others by watching a game or maybe participating as a partner in the game? For example, i got into MTG due to players, now friends, allowing me to borrow a deck and play against them while they teach me the rules and strategies of the game. Now this may be different due to the game being played with models that are painted and worth more than cards, but I don't know someone personally that plays any kind of wargame so this scene is completely new to me. Thanks for any advice and hopefully i can respond to any comments or questions you all have for me too. Also, great channel you definitely got me interested in the hobby :) This idea came to me by watching the "How to not be 'That Guy'" video from a while ago.
And then many games are meeting in the middle with apps. Mansions of Madness: 2nd ed. does this very well with the app taking the "GM" role, allowing me to play as an invest and making a game playable in one evening.
Something that's overlooked in the video: Many people play one type of game or the other (i.e. video vs. tabletop games) because it suits their preferences. Many folks who play video games just can't get behind the static nature of miniatures and dice rolling, while many folks who play tabletop just don't like the environment inherent to video games. I agree that both types of games do some things better than the other, but I hardly think they're competing for the same crowd. I feel the videogaming and wargaming communities are entirely separate; they just happen to have a bit of overlap.
Thanks for the video post! How's it going at GenCon?
I feel like kill team is the tactical end of XCOM. I love both.
While i like skirmish games the streamlining of 40k turned me right off it. I only play 5th edition now in a small group with some bolt action house rules thrown in.
I prefer to play the computer version of Star Fleet Battles on the computer (Star Fleet Command) via the LAN simply because more massive and faster battles can be fought without the paperwork overheads.
I often have reservations about a 'vidya gaem' adaptation with is basically a port of a TT game to an electronic platform - much like the 2013 Space Hulk game. I feel like EA's 1993 release took more advantage of the change in platform to produce an experience that was very different, but really true to the spirit of the original game(even if it was single player only, because you can't really use that interpretation of the command point system in multiplayer).
Adapting to a video game should be seen as an opportunity to innovate in gameplay, rather than just beating off over dynamic lighted 3d renders.
They are interesting points you make. I'm old. PC's hold no real joy for me. When I do a Napoleonic wargame I want the armies at ratio 1:20. If I do Bagration 1944 I want a slice of the battle at 1:15. I only collect 1/72 plastic armies for the grandeur of effect and for the challenge of production. There will probably always be people like me who have a foot in only one camp. There will obviously be people like you who have a foot in each. You often say it yourself 'if you're having fun, you're winning' at the hobby, obviously. Opinions, if you'll forgive me, are like navels. It's a valid opinion but the pool of reasoning and nuance is far deeper than this and may require a series of its own to be adequately explored. I thoroughly enjoy your work and the debate it throws up.
I like the size of warhammer 40k. It is fun with all of the models and having big armies, but it doesn't cost too much to actually play. I also love the scale of total war, with it's grand and detailed battles. And I love the scale of ARMA III, where you are working with your team in small and large groups on a dynamic battlefield filled with players and AI.
edit: I think Dawn of War 2 and games like it are great. For example x-com. I also think that large scale wargames and large scale batlle video games are both epic. They are just a different experience. I really enjoy seeing all of the soldiers shooting and stabbing eachother in total war, but I also really like looking at my painted soldiers, or robots, or cyborgs, or monsters in the battle up close, behind cover, and in detailed scenery and being able to have these types of thing in real life.
But First Person Shooters with all that detail have already been effectively brought offline. Flying Buffalo's Lost World gamebooks do just that. Or the Queen's Blade gamebooks if you want some naughty content
What's interesting back in the day most games were very simulation heavy, like old WRG games, and after time they started making more abstract, fast games like DBA. It is interesting to think that we started with complex, deep and heavy, and not yhe other way around, like with board games that started simple and became more and more complex (not counting board game wargames).
you should give the Mordheim videogame a go, i never played the tabletop version so i dont know how it compares, but its quite a fun videogame imo
tRiGgErEd...
Lol actually I’m a LONG time battletech fan, and I agree. HBS knocked it out of the park for me too.
Check out Dow ultimate apocalypse (which is free) if you want to play huge games of simulated 40k man those guys have skills.
Is that the Deus Ex song at the very end of the video?
It is interesting that compared to the tabletop vs video gaming from before he kind of flipped sides here.
Check out the Wargames Holiday Centre in England - massive tables for massive battles 👍
Mercs did the gun battle example very well
My opinion is - the over abstraction of the miniatures games has reached a point where people that do like some simulationist have been driven out with a lack of content since every game seems to be going overboard with over abstraction.
I too started with Battletech in the 80s. And I agree it can be over complicated.
However - there needs to be a middle ground. Miniatures to me should have some immersive reality in them. When things don't operate how they should intuitively, it can be jarring and suck.
There needs to be a middle ground. Not all miniatures games need to be Magic: The Gathering in their abstraction.
When most of the tabletop games have moved toward "streamlining" abstraction, you are leaving the people that like some simulationist aspects in the dark. Playing computer games is great... except you don't have that face to face element that people enjoy with tabletop miniatures.
What surprises me with how common portable computers are is how little they are used to help run a table game. Do people just like rolling lots of dice and crunching the numbers?
As much as I would love a 40k game with scale the intimacy of the squads from Dawn of War 2 (retribution) is really amazing.
And Kill Team: Heralds of Ruin is a decent way to recreate that feeling on the tabletop, if that's your jam.
Personally this is how I think it will go: technology will advance more and more unless people will play with the plastic models until all that's left are a few hold outs and collectors. Then plastic will make a resurgence and the market will stabilize. This is something we see with Telecom. Millennials were crazy about things like Skyping meetings but genze is more and more preferring in-person meetings. Genze is also interested in Polaroids. It seems like even though old technology is phasing out that it makes a resurgence because people like the "old School" like vinyl.
Good things about games such as, for example, Total war: warhammer is the fact that you can play games when ever you want, or if no one local.
Hanging out for NECROMUNDA on pc so much.
XCOM is pretty successful as a skirmish style video-game. Enough so that its genre of turn-based tactics is having a bit of a resurgence on PC, with quite a few high-quality indie titles springing up in the last couple of years. So while I do see the point about tabletop moving away from large army games, I'm not sure I'd agree that we need some sort of AR set-up for video-games to do well in the area of small skirmish combat.
3:28 : You play Warmaster.
xcom is pretty good when i comes to skirmish pc games, however, when i was done with it and the online aspect died out, i just went back to 40k so then theres that...
Skirmish game on the PC: XCOM2.
If Corvus Belli would do one for Infinity like that, I'd be all over it. However, the appeal of TT over PC games is the social aspect, which you just can't quite capture playing online.
This is #1 when it comes to good game design. A game isn’t a simulation.
Look at... Tetris. Tetris isn’t a simulation of anything.
A game can be _themed,_ that is, it can be _’dressed up’_ as whatever you want.
Fantasy, sci fi, that’s all artistic choice.
________
Not only are simulations bad games... due to the fact that they’re activities which are _not_ games...
But reality is so often counter intuitive, that our expectations differ wildly from what the simulation delivers.
What we _imagine_ a simulation to be like... is inspired by _so many_ tropes, myths, ideals, aspirations, etc, that reality *will* defy our preconceived notions of reality:
Take for example... a fantasy duel between knights. You’re not hurting someone in that plate armor you’re imagining. Nobody is dying in a duel.
What we _do_ know, based on archeological forensics of battle fields... is that fights looked like a modern machete fight, between two mobs in a standoff at a skirmish line.
Eventually there’s fear, panic, and a stampede: a rout. Virtually everyone who dies, is chased down, exhausted, beaten and hacked to death by a mob - helmets ripped off, several blows to the head in the fetal position, etc.
What we want to simulate isn’t reality. What we _can_ simulate, is a model abstracted from reality.
_______
In fact, the task of simulating reality is likely impossible due to the fact that our own misconceptions _will_ find their way into the system.
First person shooter? Atom... I play Traveller with Miniatures. Tabletop RPG's are the way to go with "detailed" FPS style tabletop. Striker rules for Traveller to add in larger battles.
Given the ideas in this video why do you think that Games Workshop is making Apocalypse? This is a tabletop rule set specifically for the kinds of large scale battles that are better done by a computer, at least according to the premise of this video.
Why are GW making Apocalypse?
Because a company that sells toy soldiers will benefit from people buying lots and lots and lots of toy soldiers, that's why.
*remaking Apocalypse
Well, for one thing, they have streamlined the rules a lot in the new version of Apocalypse - which follows along with the point of my video. Thanks for watching!
was there an empty... pa-chow? in the 8th minute?
Atom, I run historical games. I can set up a battle from the Napoleonic wars in 15mm with hundreds of troops on the battlefield. I play a simulation ruleset called Napoleon's Battles that when it was released back in 1988 or so was considered a "streamline" miniatures game. A game can take anywhere from four to six hours and for big battles eight or more hours. We could play in less time, but the challenge I face is that when I organize a game with six players, let's say three per side, and the players are so exited to talk to each other about early 19th century tactics and the color of wool that the 5th Regiment of Foot wore with another human being that for me as they gamemaster, I have a hard time focusing the other players on the game. It has nothing to do with the ruleset, but everything to do with people who sit in their hobby hovel all week painting little tiny soldiers in a society where everyone thinks it is not normal, but yet they play a game with a real human being (not a computer) they want to talk about all the research they have done and show off the minis they spent the whole week (month) painting. This is not a bad thing, but realize that no matter how well computers simulate combat, humans are social animals and we wargamers are misunderstood by the rest of "normal" people in society who have no passion for anything except making money. It's nice to spend the day with people who "get" you and are passionate about our hobby.
Make a video about that. PA-CHOWW!!!
Hey Adam. Love the channel. I work in audio production radio commercials. That’s not to say I’m an expert, or even good, merely stated for context to my curiosity. My question is what audio setup are you using?
With one caveat, your recordings sound great. What mic are you recording with and do you have any other hardware in your chain?
The caveat is it could really benefit from a low cut filter. On fuller sound systems your voice becomes very muddy but everything else is recorded so well that it’s crystal clear rolling off the low end would make the audio infinitely better.
Do broadly agree although there are some styles that work well as pc simulation even on smaller scale. xcom (2011. or even 93 for that matter) with ~10 dudes would have been much harder to translate to the board.
It’s actually refreshing to get away from the computer games. Miniature wargaming is a tactile experience that computers (at least for now?) cannot deliver. Good as always, Uncle A!
If this had been titled '...too much complexity' rather than simulation then I would agree. The 'simulationist vs gamer' argument has been ongoing since the start of the hobby but at the core is about arguing about how 'real' the action is. ( or perceived to be ).
Battletech is a simulation of... Big Stompy Robot Cartoons.
It's good fun, but the powers that be can't even get the model scales consistant, and it has weapon ranges so short that a spudgun could out range them. A simulationist would poke their own eyes out than play Battletech ( or 40k or FoW or Bolt Action etc etc)
Given the current state of the video game industry and the growing trend towards microtransactions.. I feel like I have more fun with tabletop gaming as far as hobbies go and I used to be a hardcore gamer, especially when it comes to glueing together and painting my armies, it makes them more personal.
There are small skirmish strategie computer games pur there. Even if it’s a but outdated right now i would Name xcom 2 as a fitting example.
My go too is a ww2 turn based simulation game called Combat Mission. Love the series.
There really are no difference in time between playing a mass battle game that has 10-20 unit elements or a skirmish game with roughly the same numbers of element to move in a game. In the miniatures market there is a whole slew of slimmed and really good mass battle games that only take a few hours to play. I usually play a mass battle game called Sword & Spears that have both a historical and fantasy version and that takes about as long to play as a 4-500p Star Wars Armada game. At least for us...
The point raised here I think have more to do with complexity and not simulation of large battles. Modern rules tend to be less complex but in many ways simulates things more accurately. Complexity often lead to gaming the rules rather than playing the game, at least that is my opinion.
After getting really angry because of your opinion I realized that in reality you are right. Us old time (over 50) historical gamers love our 6x4 tables with hundreds of miniatures and 6-8+ hours to fight a battle. Time has become our enemy. Either historical miniatures or board games are really fading. Why fight Waterloo with 1000's of figures o taking an entire weekend to play when I can play on my computer screen over a week or 2. We have PBEM for our historical games and again I can take my time and just mail my turn in the computer does all the work. Sad very sad but it's really the truth.
Interesting view! For me personally I try not to compare the two too much as they give me different levels of entertainment. Though I do love playing games such as WHTW2 so I can get my total war fix in the Warhammer fantasy setting. I can't compare it to the feeling of playing the tabletop. That said of course I still love them both just for different reasons. Either way, great video and keep up the good work! :)
GW had a solution for Total Warhammer type tabletop it was great. It was called Warmaster. It worked as well as Epic 40k did. It was great. Lets be real though. What happened was this. Computer games drained market share from table-top. Table-top games were always small. They've been trying to regain that market share by streamlining. I am a detail guy. I prefer more complex (but not too complex) rules for tabletop. There is a vast "experiential" difference between a table-top game and a computer game, even if similar. While a computer takes the load off the players from having to buy and paint.. computers are actually severely limited in their "simulations". The boundaries put on the player experience are very narrow. Table-top is as infinite and detailed as the players make it with their models.
I can understand the "time crunch" problem. People were used to a slower experience in decades past. Today everyone is hopped up on instant gratification and easy play of computers. This of course shrinks the Table Top Gaming market, which is ever tiny. You can try to make a table top game more abstract but the more abstract you make it the more boring and flat it becomes with less and less dynamism to draw you into the game. The thing about table-top vs computer is the ability to draw you into the game, to excite you, the details, the freedom of physical models that you move and paint. But let us also be real here in such that Table Top comes at a much higher cash price tag than a computer game like TW:WH, which I have and play and enjoy. But it is an entirely different experience than was playing Warmaster. Just as Table-top Simulator actually is a WORSE experience for me than playing on the table. Even though I don't get as many games in thanks to small children and busy adult lives tabletop is still more exciting to me than playing the same thing simulated on the computer. But then again, this modern day and age expect spoon-fed imagery and has trouble with "imagination". Also the down side to "speeding things up" is churn and exhaustion. Video-games suffer from severe churn and version exhaustion.
Even more computer games that are proper sim games like TW:WH or a good 4x like Planetfall or older MOO and MOO2 could take 6-7 hours for a single multi-player game often played over the course of a week.
There are engrossing activities and there are "quick hits". The style of play and the player expectations are completely different. I prefer engrossing activities and I don't mind if a game takes a week to finish off and on with friends. But turning Table Top into a MOBA isn't going to work. Physical models cost more, the take time to paint, they take time to setup, and as you keep shaving off playing into "depth" you end up with a kiddie pool that does not bring in the "quick hit drug" type (because it is still too engrossing and time consuming, as well as costly when they have other avenues to feed their instant grat addiction) and turns off people like me who look at the current Apoc and just laugh. And, we won't buy it. I still buy GW stuff but I buy less and less as time goes on. It's not about cost or money. I find their rules to be more and more boring, rather than swimming in an ocean I feel like I've got my feet in a foot-bath or a warm pee filled kiddie pool. I'd rather eat cardboard pizza.
The final piece of the puzzle and why "watering down" or "speeding up" table-top too far to try to expand into the computer type market is that given the choice between a severely bland fast table-top game and a computer game that is both cheaper and faster to experience and play.. I am always going to pick the computer game. I play Table Top games because they offer an experience that computer games cannot. The closer they bring the two the MORE superior computer gaming is to table top.
Strategy games were you control little sqads are awesome :-) i love Xcom and FF tactics :-)
Everytime when a new - lets call it realistic - WW2 computer game comes out, there are people that criticize its not realistic enough. However, true realism is just not fun to play. Let me give an example: If a wargame of WW2 was 100% realistic, germany would always loose in that game. Would that be fun?
I can understand that people want to play games in which the unit strength are realistic, but I personally don't want to play games in which this comes at the cost of game balance.
T. Janz Germany was pretty close to winning..... minor factors of time and bad calls one the day (for both sides)
@@davidekstrom9595 But they didn't. So it wouldn't be 100% realistic.
Good point though.
Love the channel. Thanks for your time. I really enjoy mordheim city of the damned, its buggy however I enjoy it. Eagerly waiting for necromunda video game. But I do agree. Both types of play, table top, and video games bring unique experiences. Thank.
I’m honestly a little disappointed that you didn’t at least touch on the latest release of Apocalypse which does allow larger battles in less time.
It's true there are plusses & minuses to the different game formats (tabletop & video). But personally I prefer just using programs & apps (that keep track of hit points & turns & such) as supplements to tabletop miniature & RPG games rather than playing video/computer games. That being said I do sometimes play them
Leslie Shafer had you not mentioned that last bit of information, I was about to ask, why you were even here.
Well they're two different beasts.
One does something very well.
The other as well.
But I don't think neither could replace the other.
Agreed. As I see it, that's why you still see people playing massive, nitty-gritty tabletop battles like old school Armageddon or historicals, while others play small-party skirmish video games like XCOM or Dawn of War II or the like. Each medium offers something unique, and does some things better than the other, but even if video games are great at massive battles, some people just want to see huge armies of minis on the table. They both have their place and can happily coexist.
I am of the opinion that battletech needs a new version that is in between complexity of total warfare and alpha strike. Streamline total warfare while keeping the spirit of the game
I think you make a good point but then why do a company like GW push WH40k Apocalypse?
You can do it! It just takes weeks or months to finish. Just keep the toddler Godzilla off the battlefield.
I play tabletop instead of video games now because it doesn’t have micro transactions or force me to gamble to get the items I want or make things my favorite colors.
Definitely disagree that said it isn't a big deal. To each their own.
Simulation stuff is exactly why I stopped playing those older games. I realised pretty quickly that things like reserves and the older mechanics in games like Flames of War are actually really unfun and slow things down immensely. Why the hell would I want to play a game where 50% of my army sits off the board and fights 100% of my opponents army?
I have not started I want to play chaos space marines